ArticlePloS one2025
"...In Kiambu county, there are different things being done": A qualitative exploration of healthcare workers' experiences with cord care practices.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNeonatal sepsis (NNS) continues to be a leading cause of neonatal mortality in low-resource settings. NNS can occur secondary to umbilical stump infections (omphalitis) and this requires preventative cord care practices. To address this, the World Health Organization (WHO) issued context-specific recommendations for the use of 7.1% chlorhexidine (CHX) solution in areas with high neonatal mortality. Despite adoption of this policy, monitoring and evaluation of this guidance is lacking. This study describes the experiences of healthcare workers (HCWs) regarding cord care practices in Kiambu County, Kenya.
methodsWe employed an exploratory qualitative design. Key informant interviews were conducted with 38 HCWs between October 6th and November 9th 2022 in six healthcare facilities in Kiambu County. Data were analyzed thematically using NVivo software.
resultsWhile Ministry of Health guidelines endorse WHO's recommendation for the nation-wide use of CHX for neonatal cord care, its implementation in Kiambu county remains varied. HCWs continue to favour surgical spirit, and one of the healthcare facilities in our study adopted a facility-based policy of dry cord care. HCWs also relayed that mothers often combined modern and traditional methods. Some HCWs reported high satisfaction with CHX due to its perceived effectiveness, ease of use, and faster stump healing. However, systemic and product-specific barriers to uptake were noted. Systemic issues included frequent CHX stock-outs and high out-of-pocket costs due to inconsistent county-level supply and lack of insurance coverage. Product-specific concerns such as difficulty of application and reported adverse effects (e.g., delayed cord detachment, sepsis, burns) further impeded use. Knowledge gaps and contrary instructions among and between both the HCWs and mothers also undermined CHX use.
conclusionDespite CHX being the recommended intervention for cord care in Kenya, its inconsistent use in Kiambu county reflects gaps in policy enforcement, supply chain reliability, and health education. The persistence of outdated or non-recommended cord care practices underscores a critical lack of oversight. To realize CHX's full public health potential, urgent policy action is needed to ensure consistent availability, enforcement of national neonatal guidelines, and investment into inclusive IEC materials. Bridging the gap between policy and practice is essential for reducing neonatal morbidity and achieving equitable progress towards Kenya's goal of Universal Health Coverage.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.